On a point of fact in relation to your previous post and the issue of the thread: the Anglican Use church in question makes its premises available to a chamber choir, run by its Director of Music but not a part of the church, who put on a yearly series of Anglican evensongs. This is quite distinct from the worship of the church, which is according to the Book of Divine Worship. I can imagine how this might appear to those with certain preconceptions.

monty wrote:Putting things very, very simply: are the current mal-contents in the Anglican Church going to come over and be mal-contents in the Roman Catholic church?

Impossible to answer Monty! BUT - without their full integration into Catholic life - I think they could end up being rather lonely. The clergy are hardly going to be a compact, highly fraternal presbyterate, unlike that of a diocese. If their faithful - as 10/15 years ago - do not, on the whole, follow them, they will be very lonely and become very depressed. Our convert diocesan clergy are not mal-content at all, but then they were warmly welcomed and made to feel at home - not least by a kind and generous Archbishop.That structure isn't there for this Ordinariate - and that's worrying.

NorthernTenor wrote:but sacral language can add...integrity of those who think differently to you

1. Please define what you mean by the word "sacral".2. Hence then justify your implied assertion that C16th idiom is any more sacral than C21st.*

After you've done that, we'll come back to the subject of coarsened ears...

*Question 2 is optional and may be omitted if the answer to Q1 is, or amounts to, "C16th idiom".

Contraburdon,

There are many languages, within Christianity and beyond, which are preserved for liturgical and/or scriptural purposes. This usage reflects a common, deeply-held intuition that the way we address or talk about God should in some way differ from ordinary language, and that this difference imbues the scriptural or liturgical texts with a more sacred resonance. Where they differ is the extent to which this principal is acted upon. Some – like Latin and Sanskrit – are no longer spoken as vernaculars. Others – like sacral English, Church Slavonic and Classical Arabic – are archaic forms of languages still spoken. Their intelligibility varies from just recognisable (or so I am told by Russian friends) to pretty clear, e.g. the language used by English-speaking Catholics when reciting the ‘Our Father’ and Marian prayers. This language is, as you point out, grounded in early modern English. It is characterised by a certain formality of expression, particularly when addressing God, Mary or the Saints, which sets such expression apart from everyday conversation and acknowledges the hierarchical nature of the relationship.

To say that sacral English is archaic, however, is not the whole story. Its distinctive elements tend not to be so divorced from modern usage that we do not understand them. The second person singular pronoun (the ‘T’ word, ‘Thee’) is still in use in parts of Northern England, and was in wider use well into the modern period. Nor should it be thought of as static: Common Protestant use of the traditional form of the Lord’s Prayer, for example, has largely dropped ‘Which art’ for ‘Who art’, ‘in earth’ for ‘on earth’, ‘them that’ for ‘those who’. This pragmatic development can be seen in modern sacral texts, such as the Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its offspring.

These observations are not merely academic. They reflect a common instinct among the Catholic Faithful, for whom sacral language has a significant devotional place. It might even be suggested that the opposition of many clergy and liturgists to such language is a measure of their alienation from the religious sense of the people. Whether or not that’s true, the point remains that it’s a more complex and nuanced topic than you’d guess from the average comment about it on this board. That being so, it may be charitable and appropriate to permit sacral English a place in the liturgical diversity proposed for a group that includes those who place a special value on it. An added benefit might be that it would provide a useful alternative perspective for ICEL to consider the next time it reviews our liturgical translations.

Finally, please let me apologise for the crack about 'coarsened ears', which was probably the wrong side of the line between knockabout and rudeness. For what it's worth, I though better of it, but by then it was too late to edit the post.

You're begging the question: you're assuming that Early Modern English has a greater right to be called "sacral" than current English. I want to know your basis for this assumption: that's why I asked you to define sacral, and you haven't done so.

To say that it is because it's different from 'ordinary' English won't do, because it was the ordinary English of the people who originally wrote it: otherwise they'd have used Old English. Why should we be different?

I've never understood why "thee" (the familiar form of the second personal pronoun) is seen as expressing a more formal relationship. Logically, it expresses a hierarchy in which we are at the top, and God is a little child.

Apology accepted re "coarsened", though I think your use of it in this discussion suggests you misunderstand my line of argument.

Hmmmm - first impression on a quick read-through - that's a bit of a journalistic rant - but it does make me want to dig out my ARCIC documents - and Roman responses. Kung articulates some cogent points but I don't sympathise with his view that the Vatican is on a "power trip". I get the impression he understands grass-roots Anglicanism less than I do (maybe he's not had the experience of a city-centre Churches Together group that I have, wherein sat five Anglican parishes (and one Anglican free-wheeler attempting to set up a congregation in a pub)). There was no way in which I could have described those C of E clergy as united in one Church, and my RC colleague and myself always felt much more at home with the Methodists. (The nearest High Church parish was not a member of this group - by the way - too far out of the city centre.)

I think Kung has missed a major point - in that he does not mention that Rome is making a response to requests.

(PS - naughty thought - - does Kung epitomise the RC equivalent of "Anglican fudge" in his approach to ecumenism?)

I think Kung has diversified too much - his classic books like The Church and Infallible? were well within his subject area of ecclesiology and even On Being a Christian, despite its being messy in parts, was rooted in his Catholicicity. I think when he started to look at world religions he was a less safe ground and has been open to criticism ever since (although his style from the mid-70s - entertaining without a doubt -has always been more journalistic than academic I think); this piece in the Guardian betrays a certain naivite - particularly his suggestion that Catholics might become Anglicans, marry and get ordained and then come back to the Catholic Church for re-ordination!

This Küng doesn't sound like the Küng I know and admire. I wonder if he actually wrote this.

On another point, I would dispute that sacral language (implied definition) has a significant place among the Catholic faithful. After 34 years of the current Missal, in fact this is the 'sacral language' for the vast majority of Catholics. Had the ICEL 1997 Missal come to pass, we would have had an improved sacral language. As it is, what we will be enduring is something which actually cannot be defined as 'language' at all. 'Robotspeak' or 'Babelfish' is the best that can be said about it.